If the Health Care bill is ruled "unconstituional" by a state judge, and/or...eventually...the Supreme Court - then would/will it be necessary to hold a vote in the Senate to repeal it?
And now...in Florida, since the HC Bill has been proclaimed unconstituional in that state -- should Florida's senators even vote (and have a countable vote)on something that is not applicable in their state? It seems to me that they can hardly approve/support or vote to repeal the bill that has been deemed unconstituional in their own state.
Isn't voting on something that is denied to have any enforceable merit by our Constitution just a waste of taxpayers' money and senators' time anyway?
The rulings were in Federal court, not state court.
If the Supreme Court rules the law is unconstitutional, then it's struck. There's no need to hold a vote.
A state judge cannot rule a federal law is unconstitutional. That's the job of a US District Court judge (first), then usually a panel of US Circuit Court judge (second, on appeal), and finally the Supreme Court.
And now...in Florida, since the HC Bill has been proclaimed unconstituional in that state -- should Florida's senators even vote (and have a countable vote)on something that is not applicable in their state? It seems to me that they can hardly approve/support or vote to repeal the bill that has been deemed unconstituional in their own state.
Vinson is a judge in the Northern District of Florida. Currently, his decision only applies to that area. However, since he declined to issue an injunction, there are no penalties if the Obama administration decides to ignore him.
If the legislation is first repealed by Congress (which is unlikely), the FL senators will have the same opportunity to vote on it.
If the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agrees with the federal judge in Florida and rules the entire ObamaCare legislation to be unconstitutional, then Congress does not need to repeal anything - the entire law will be void.
For your second question, are you talking about the Florida Senate or the U.S. Senate?
You have to remember that our judicial system has been corrupted by "realism" that views judicial rulings as particularly hypocritical political acts; the cynically destructive 'postmodernism' that took over the rest of academia in late twentieth century is a century old, and simply called 'modernism' in American law schools.
In this environment, even a closely-written and sensible decision can be overturned by a higher court who sees as its task to carry the ball rather than to be a referee. Already state and federal functionaries intend to carry on as though the law had not just been struck down - because other courts have upheld it, so "it's not a settled issue." This is a dangerous situation, and it is not wasted time to to have a two-pronged attack on this Communist abomination, despite a favorable ruling.
In many, many of the Supreme Court rulings I have read, the Court expresses the wish for legislative action to resolve actions ... a legislative repeal would render the judicial decisions moot. There is no reason for a legislator not to participate in the resolution of an issue legislatively rather than depend on judicial intervention.
Q1=Yes
Q2=No